Valentina, On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 7:55 AM, Valentina Poletti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > As I explained above, many/most complex problems and conflicts can be fixed >> WITHOUT a full understanding of them, so your argument above is really >> irrelevant to my assertion. >> > > Yeh.. but i wasn't talking about such problems here. I was talking about > problems you do have a full understanding of. For example see your > statement: Random investment beats nearly all other methods. > This has been carefully studied and is now believed to be well understood. Then resulted in the "invention" of "contrarian investment" strategies, about where there are now a number of good books. In a nutshell, by the time that an industry-wide "opinion" develops, all of the "smart money" has already taken advantage of the opportunity (or lack thereof), so things can only go the opposite way. > > Not at all! There is some broadly-applicable logical principles that NEVER > EVER fail, like Reductio ad Absurdum. Some of these are advanced and not > generally known, even to people here on this forum, like Reverse Reductio ad > Absurdum. Some conflicts require this advanced level of understanding for > the participants to participate in a process that leads to a mutually > satisfactory conclusion. > > Why do you assume most people on this forum would not know/understand > them? > I look at feedback and comments, which seem to presume lack of this understanding. > And how would you relate this to culture anyways? > An interesting question, and one that I am still considering... Dr. Eliza doesn't do much that people shouldn't also be able to do - but for prior shitforbrains social programming. > > Yes, and THIS TOO is also one of those advanced concepts. If you ask a > Palestinian about what the problem is in the Middle East, he will say that > it is the Israelis. If you ask an Israeli, he will say that it is the > Palestinians. If you ask a Kanamet (from the Twilight Zone show "To Serve > Man", the title of a cook book), he will say that the problem is that they > are wasting good food. However, Reverse Reductio ad Absurdum methods can > point the way to a solution that satisfies all parties. > > Hmm.. I guess I just don't see how. Could you be a lil more specific? :) > If you DEEPLY examine the positions by drilling WAY down into the collective thought process, you find "flaws" in each sufficient to drive a common solution through. I have written longer posts on this in the past. To illustrate: 1. The Koran teaches to respect Jewdiasm and Christianity, so Jews SHOULD be able to live pretty much as they please in a Muslim society. 2. Israel claims legitimacy by UN decree, but where did the UN ever get the authority to carve a new state from an existing state? OK, so they have their state, but where does any government get the right to confiscate land without payment? OK, so they have confiscated the land, isn't this a PUBLIC asset and hence just as available to ANY inhabitant whether Israeli or Palestinian? 3. The Kanamets just want ANY peaceful solution, so they will be pleased by anything that is OK with both Israelis and Palestinians. In short, if either side actually respected the religions that they claim, then the other side should be able to live therein without problems. The problem is a population that attends mosques/synagogues but has never actually READ the entirety of their respective religious documents, as I have. Note that we have the same problems here in America, where our representatives are only too eager to set our Constitution aside as convenient. Christians believe as much or more in their Doctors as they do in Jesus, etc. > >> In short, you appear to be laboring under the most dangerous assumption of >> all - that man's efforts to improve his lot and address his problems is at >> all logical. It is rarely so, as advanced methods often suggest radically >> different and better approaches. Throwing AGIs into the present social mess >> would be an unmitigated disaster, of the very sorts that you suggest. >> > > When you say 'man' do you include yourself as well? ;) I hope not.. I don't > assume that: Yet you seem to assume that the methods you have are better > than anybody else's for any field. > This has two levels of response: 1. I (and my family) seem to be the only ones working on new systems of logic. This field has been nearly dormant for the last half-century, since the introduction of Game Theory. A notable exception has been in the field of economics, where new methods are being regularly developed, some with potential application outside of economics. 2. Perhaps you have read the book Smart Drugs co-authored by my good friend (and another past-president of The Smart Life Forum) Stephen Fowkes? This book (and Fowkes' research) addresses various pharmacological approaches to enhancing brain function. Of course, these drugs only make temporary metabolic changes, so I engineered a related approach to make similar changes permanent. I was forced into this to cure some medical problems that I was having. The result has been nothing short of spectacular. Since then, I seem to have an ability to move up another meta-level than other people when working in complex domains. Most people consider my methods to be astronomically risky, and so no one considers them except as a last "parting shot" before giving up on life (as they have known it), which was my situation. Having now helped several others through this, using successively improving methods, I have learned to control the risks to health to a reasonably acceptable level. Steve Richfield ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=106510220-47b225 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
